|
So if anyone is deemed "safe" in the community, they should be allowed guns.
So long as the law allows, yes...
Felons on probation should be allowed guns, as clearly they are deemed safe to be in the community, right?
Now you're just being silly...
I've never once advocated allowing felons access to firearms...
You've said that if people are safe enough to be allowed to mingle with the general public, they're safe enough to have guns.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if anyone is deemed "safe" in the community, they should be allowed guns.So long as the law allows, yes...
Felons on probation should be allowed guns, as clearly they are deemed safe to be in the community, right?Now you're just being silly...
I've never once advocated allowing felons access to firearms...
They are deemed "safe" in the community. They served their time and completed sentances.
If someone is committed for 72 hours and released because so long as they take their medication they are "safe" but we all know they won't take the meds, you are saying it is unreasonable for a mental health professional to restrict access to guns to that person.
Yet if a felon is released after serving a sentance, no guns.
And your solution is to have more people involuntarily committed, as if that isn't a far worse infringement on rights than not letting them buy a gun.
|
|
It exists. It is the database gun owners call currently.
This is what the NICS accesses: NICS Information
Take a close look at this:
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
But I guess you do not think this is enough, because it isn't a big enough safety-net for you...
This is actually current law in most places. The issue is the database is poorly updates and often doesn't cross state lines.
The FBI runs the program, so yes it does cross state lines as this is the system that FFL's in ALL 50 states have to access every time they sell a firearm (so it is not law in most places, it is law in all 50 states)...
|
|
You've said that if people are safe enough to be allowed to mingle with the general public, they're safe enough to have guns.
Right, so since you think my views are unreasonable in the first place, my statement simple MUST mean that I advocate that people ALREADY denied access to firearms have access to them...
That's rich...
|
|
It exists. It is the database gun owners call currently.This is what the NICS accesses: NICS Information
Take a close look at this:
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.But I guess you do not think this is enough, because it isn't a big enough safety-net for you...
This is actually current law in most places. The issue is the database is poorly updates and often doesn't cross state lines.The FBI runs the program, so yes it does cross state lines as this is the system that FFL's in ALL 50 states have to access every time they sell a firearm (so it is not law in most places, it is law in all 50 states)...
Yes, but it is maintained by the states. And many states, including Virginia, which was the issue with Cho, have wording that contridicts this and therefore they aren't added to the database.
Arizona is even worse. The database is useless if it isn't able to be updated because local law contridicts.
Look it up, since you are using your google-fu.
|
|
You've said that if people are safe enough to be allowed to mingle with the general public, they're safe enough to have guns.Right, so since you think my views are unreasonable in the first place, my statement simple MUST mean that I advocate that people ALREADY denied access to firearms have access to them...
That's rich...
It is also the foundation of your argument. If you don't like the foundation of your argument, you may want to either change it or re-think your position.
If a person is deemed "too unstable" to warrant not being allowed access to guns, then that person should also be deemed "too unstable" to be allowed to mingle unsupervised in society at large...
That's you, right? Back on page 4.
Are you saying that the reverse is not true? That people deemed stable enough to mingle in society should also be deemed safe enough to own guns.
|
|
They are deemed "safe" in the community. They served their time and completed sentances.
But they are not deemed safe by the community. Felons are treated like pariah in this country...
It should be that our prison system rehabilitates those that are incarcerated. But what tends to happen, is people sent to prison, simply learn to become better criminals...
No, this is not the case for everybody, but the fact remains that our prison system does not work...
If someone is committed for 72 hours and released because so long as they take their medication they are "safe" but we all know they won't take the meds, you are saying it is unreasonable for a mental health professional to restrict access to guns to that person.
If someone who needs medication in order to not kill people, then that person needs not to be allowed in public...
Yet if a felon is released after serving a sentance, no guns.
It is already law under "18 U.S.C. § 3665 : US Code - Section 3665"
And your solution is to have more people involuntarily committed, as if that isn't a far worse infringement on rights than not letting them buy a gun.
Only those that are deemed likely to go nutz and shoot up movie theaters...
And like I've kept saying, if you get mistakenly put on that list, it is not an easy task to remove yourself from it; it is time consuming (can take months to years) and can be very costly (having to pay lawyers and other court costs)...
Having that happen violates the 5th Amendment...
|
|
It is also the foundation of your argument. If you don't like the foundation of your argument, you may want to either change it or re-think your position.
That's you, right? Back on page 4.
Are you saying that the reverse is not true?
Both of you are stretching now...
My post history should reflect the fact, that I am law abiding. I think I have been fairly consistent in that...
I have NEVER, not once, stated that people who have already been denied access to firearms (via the law), be given access...
people deemed stable enough to mingle in society should also be deemed safe enough to own guns.
To answer your question, yes, so long as that person is not otherwise prohibited from owning one...
Look it up, since you are using your google-fu.
I am only using Google to look up the actual language of these laws. I otherwise know our nation's gun laws (I just can't quote you the language of them verbatim)...
|
|
And our mental health system "fixes" everyone prior to release?
If you have a serious mental health condition and refuse to take your medication, the revolving door works like this. You get picked up and involuntarily committed. You are stablized with your medication and released as at that moment, you don't meet the criteria.
We know Holmes went to the police with concerns 6 weeks before the shooting and we know he was still buying guns and ammo for several weeks after that.
That is a problem.
We know Cho was deemed dangerously mentally ill by the courts and was still able to legally buy firearms in Virginia because the language between state and federal law didn't match up.
That is a problem.
I read through the article this time and it makes a distinction between non-violent protest and principled nonviolence.
I guess my arguments were aimed more at principled nonviolence. I, hopefully obviously, have nothing against non-violent protest.
But this is the kind of stuff I like talking about, so, for funsies:
"For example, in non-violent revolutions, there was a 46% ratio of security force defections to the non-violent movement, compared to a 2% ratio of defections to violent movements. The states ability to commit violence is greatly reduced when the security forces defect, so which is the safer play?"
For any serious revolutionary, of which I hardly qualify as one, the question of splitting the armed forces is key. But I would have to look through the footnotes of the stats. What revolutions are they talking about? How many non-violent revolutions have there been? Indian independence, fall of the Soviet bloc (grrr, really a counterrevolution, grrr)--which I guess counts as half a dozen or so, what else?
Obviously (or maybe not looking at history), you aren't going to split the army by yelling "Off the pigs!" and blowing up the discos where they hang out. But there's a good chance that they're not all going to come over and foregoing in advance the idea that you're going to defend yourself is a bad idea, methinks.
On a side note, I would expect that there would be a much lesser--EDIT: I mean "greater"--chance of troop defection in "domestic" situations than in independence struggles. I bet there weren't many British troops defecting during Gandhi's day. (Although, there were probably a bunch of Indian troops who defected.)
"Besides, you should be pro-non violence. Non-violent protest is a direct testament of the power of the people, that through something as simple as inaction, like everyone refusing to work, or just flat out ignoring a regime, it can be brought to its knees."
I don't believe in the power of the people. I believe in the power of the working class. Although I love refusing to work.
I'm not sure what the stuff about the American Revolution is for--I don't doubt that the AR took 8+ years.
As for SC: Yeah, a president was elected on a platform of not allowing the expansion of slavery and the slavemasters bolted. I don't know where this argument is going.
The point is, non-violence leads to the best chance of getting the military to defect. Once the military starts to defect, they bring weapons with them. It doesn't really matter if you had arms to start with.
If you start with violence or switch to it too soon, it's much easier to be painted as dangerous terrorist and get put down with the full support of the military and the public.
On the other hand, the military rarely defects to an opposition that shows itself unable to defend itself.
But, honestly, I don't think we're all that far apart in what we're saying. I just don't think a Gandhian/MLK-style promise of not fighting back is a very promising path, either.
|
|
And our mental health system "fixes" everyone prior to release?
No, it doesn't. And that goes to my greater point when I say that if you find yourself on this list of yours when you do not belong on it...
Our system of doing things is severely flawed (in all areas)...
And adding more bureaucracy to the mix will only serve to foul it up even more...
It is a tragedy when things like Colorado happen, but you cannot use these incidents to create laws that violate the rights of those who do not break the law...
If you have a serious mental health condition and refuse to take your medication, the revolving door works like this. You get picked up and involuntarily committed. You are stablized with your medication and released as at that moment, you don't meet the criteria.
An example of how this system is flawed...
Fix this, the source of the problem...
We know Holmes went to the police with concerns 6 weeks before the shooting and we know he was still buying guns and ammo for several weeks after that.
That is a problem.
Yes, so again, fix the problem at the source...
We know Cho was deemed dangerously mentally ill by the courts and was still able to legally buy firearms in Virginia because the language between state and federal law didn't match up.
That is a problem.
Again, no argument there...
Address the source of the problem, which is we do not properly treat people with these issues. The answer is obviously not just throwing medication at them and then releasing them...
But the answer is also not making it harder to buy a firearm (which does not deal with the source of the problem anyway)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you aren't going to split the army by yelling "Off the pigs!"
Dammit, I've been doing it all wrong all along, then.
I think it's more that once even the hired goons agree that you're oppressed, the overall level of violence being carried out is going to decrease, meaning less oppression. Once the dictator no longer has people to carry out his orders, he's no longer a dictator and just some crazy guy yelling at people.
|
|
now we go back to you basically saying we need to lock people up to protect thier rights.
Again, only those that are deemed likely to go out and shoot up a movie theater....
If someone is incapable of not acting upon thoughts of killing people, then that person is a danger to society and should not be allowed to go around unsupervised...
And saying that if a psychiatrist says this or that person should not have a gun. That says the psychiatrist thinks this person is likely to go out and use said gun in an unhealthy manner. This in turns says that this person should not be allowed to go around unsupervised...
But the military does. You're far more likely to get defectors when they're ordered to kill peaceful protestors than when they're defending themselves from armed terrorists. We've seen that again and again.
I don't know.
I'm thinking of lots of examples of where they just mowed down the peaceful protestors.
And I can think of a bunch where they joined the Red Guards--Russia 1905, Russia 1917, Germany 1918, Hungary 1919, Hungary 1956, Cuba 1959, Vietnam 1960s-70s (ARVN troops, obviously, not GIs), Nicaragua 1979, etc., etc. I guess I am going to have to go look at those footnotes and charts and shiznit.
I don't in any way support terrorism as a political strategy (which doesn't mean I don't think there have been some cool terrorists throughout history). And I don't think that just because the workers have guns they should bring them to every picket line.
But, you know, after the troops shoot down the peaceful protestors, and a general strike breaks out, and they call in the National Guard, and sympathy strikes are called throughout the land, and some troops defect, and some declare themselves neutral, and some remain stooges of the plutocracy, it might be nice to be able to send someone over to, say, Bitter Thorn's house to pick up some more guns for the Ladies Auxiliary.
The use of violence makes it much easier for the other side to get entrenched. Once you sustain loss of life, it becomes hard to justify backing down to the other side. It's pretty evident with the:
Arab-Israelis
India-Pakistan
UK-Ireland
North Korean - South Korean
Sri Lanka - Tamils
Hatfields - McCoys
There are examples of blood being shed and the two sides making peace and growing close, but they're much more rare and usually contain other strong bonds between them.
Sure the British and Irish have largely made peace, but walk into the wrong bar wearing orange on St. Paddy's day... There are people who will punch you and they don't even know the reason why.
South Africa definitely had its troubles during its transition, but in a lot of ways it has been a model for how to achieve change. The Truth and Reconciliation tribunals are a model for what can be done to let a country move forward instead of being mired in the violence of it's past.
Yes, I agree, violence is very bad and should be avoided whenever possible.
Especially when squabbling over pigs.
|
|
now we go back to you basically saying we need to lock people up to protect thier rights.Again, only those that are deemed likely to go out and shoot up a movie theater....
If someone is incapable of not acting upon thoughts of killing people, then that person is a danger to society and should not be allowed to go around unsupervised...
And saying that if a psychiatrist says this or that person should not have a gun. That says the psychiatrist thinks this person is likely to go out and use said gun in an unhealthy manner. This in turns says that this person should not be allowed to go around unsupervised...
So the doctor who was concerned about Holmes being unstable should have committed him rather than notifying police.
Also, ending with...it works for you. It implies there is a lot more to say than what you are saying, which is true.
You have no solutions...
|
And if this guy had used anything but a gun we would not be having this conversation. That is the issue. If he had made a fertilizer bomb we would not be discussing a panel to decide if he should be allowed to buy it. if he had burned it down with gas we would not be arguing that mental health officials should be able to flag the crazy so they cannot buy. Yet if the gun controllers get their way the crazy will still have other means, more efficient means, easily available. If you give a damn about stopping the suffering you would want to stop the crazy, not just one tool.
Should they be allowed to have crossbows?
|
|
And if this guy had used anything but a gun we would not be having this conversation. That is the issue. If he had made a fertilizer bomb we would not be discussing a panel to decide if he should be allowed to buy it. if he had burned it down with gas we would not be arguing that mental health officials should be able to flag the crazy so they cannot buy. Yet if the gun controllers get their way the crazy will still have other means, more efficient means, easily available. If you give a damn about stopping the suffering you would want to stop the crazy, not just one tool.
You are obsessed with fertilizer bombs. Ironically, getting access to the materials to make them is actually going to raise more red flags than buying a gun.
Your favorite strawman only seems to convince you. You might want to find a new one.
And if this guy had used anything but a gun we would not be having this conversation. That is the issue. If he had made a fertilizer bomb we would not be discussing a panel to decide if he should be allowed to buy it. if he had burned it down with gas we would not be arguing that mental health officials should be able to flag the crazy so they cannot buy. Yet if the gun controllers get their way the crazy will still have other means, more efficient means, easily available. If you give a damn about stopping the suffering you would want to stop the crazy, not just one tool.
They do track purchases of things needed for fertilizer bombs.
Also, gasoline and fertilizer have primary uses that don't involve maiming or killing living beings.
This isn't really a physical possibility, but if someone developed a chainsaw that was really bad at cutting wood, but super awesome at cutting people, and that was really it's only useful purpose, I'd be suspect of people wanting to own one.
|
|
So the doctor who was concerned about Holmes being unstable should have committed him rather than notifying police.
I never say committed, I say "under supervision" because actual commitment might not be necessary. This leaves it open for things like "surprise visits" from social type workers to see how their "out-patient" is doing. Or any number of other similar things...
Either way (in-patient or out-patient treatment), we only need to keep them “under supervision” long enough to make a determination of whether or not that person has the ability to not act upon homicidal impulses…
And if they do not possess the ability to not act upon them, then by all means, commit them. Doing so would be in the best interest of the patient AND the public...
As I have said, our system has flaws and needs improvement...
Also, ending with...
No, that's just how I post (ask Kirth, it seems to drive him nuts)...
I have done this since my very first post here on Paizo, to this post...
And...
I post like this on the other message boards I frequent...
Nice try however, kudos to you...
there is a lot more to say than what you are saying, which is true.
On this however, we agree...
You have no solutions...
Just because I don't personally know how to best deal with this issue, does not mean that I cannot tell a bad idea when I see one...
Nor does it preclude me from having a voice when one is proposed...
I do know that tossing more gun laws at this problem is no solution, and I've explained why...
now we go back to you basically saying we need to lock people up to protect thier rights.Again, only those that are deemed likely to go out and shoot up a movie theater....
If someone is incapable of not acting upon thoughts of killing people, then that person is a danger to society and should not be allowed to go around unsupervised...
And saying that if a psychiatrist says this or that person should not have a gun. That says the psychiatrist thinks this person is likely to go out and use said gun in an unhealthy manner. This in turns says that this person should not be allowed to go around unsupervised...
So the doctor who was concerned about Holmes being unstable should have committed him rather than notifying police.
Also, ending with...it works for you. It implies there is a lot more to say than what you are saying, which is true.
You have no solutions...
Should they have sonic screwdrivers?
|
|
Under supervision?
So we will have someone come to your home
I said "social type workers" pay a visit...
Not men dressed in black, wearing balaclavas, Kevlar, and armed with Colt M4 automatic rifles...
but we can't stop you from buying a gun.
As I've said before, when someone is under supervision, it means that person is not out buying guns...
Do you know what I do for a living, by the way? It makes your "under supervision" argument really, really funny.
Oh sorry, really funny...
On several occasions (in deferent threads) you've dropped hints here and there...
So I have ideas on the subject (but I'm not going to hazard a guess)...
|
|
So while they're in out-patient care, they're not allowed to buy guns?
Correct, they would not be allowed to purchase a firearm...
If someone is under supervision, then that means it was an adjudicated decision to place the person under that supervision...
Question 11F on the BATFE form 4470 asks:
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
I would say that being under forced psychiatric supervision (even as an out-patient) means that you cannot manage your own affairs...
If you lie on this form, you have committed a felony...
And if you are under current forced psychiatric supervision, then the FBI’s NICS system should flag the purchase anyway (with the purchase being denied)…
If it does not…
The "social type workers" pay the out-patient their regular visit, find firearms, and off to prison he goes (where he would still receive regular psychiatric evaluations)...
|
|
And if this guy had used anything but a gun we would not be having this conversation. That is the issue. If he had made a fertilizer bomb we would not be discussing a panel to decide if he should be allowed to buy it. if he had burned it down with gas we would not be arguing that mental health officials should be able to flag the crazy so they cannot buy. Yet if the gun controllers get their way the crazy will still have other means, more efficient means, easily available. If you give a damn about stopping the suffering you would want to stop the crazy, not just one tool.They do track purchases of things needed for fertilizer bombs.
Also, gasoline and fertilizer have primary uses that don't involve maiming or killing living beings.
This isn't really a physical possibility, but if someone developed a chainsaw that was really bad at cutting wood, but super awesome at cutting people, and that was really it's only useful purpose, I'd be suspect of people wanting to own one.
And again you anti gun folks miss the point. You protect NO ONE by stopping legal gun purchase. you can protect them by keeping the crazy away from people
|
|
On several occasions (in deferent threads) you've dropped hints here and there...
So I have ideas on the subject (but I'm not going to hazard a guess)...
I've said outright several times in many threads. I'm a probation officer.
The magical supervision fairy who is going to watch crazy people poop so they can't buy guns...
|
|
And again you anti gun folks miss the point. You protect NO ONE by stopping legal gun purchase. you can protect them by keeping the crazy away from people
So again, we go back to lock people up so the can keep their rights.
I know this lovely fantasy world of "Good" vs "Evil" where everyone is wearing name tags saying which side they are on works in your head.
And I know you think incarcerating the "Bad" people is free, so we don't need to pay taxes.
But perhaps you can still see the irony that you want to keep the crazy people away from "people" but you don't want them to not be able to buy guns.
Or maybe you can't...not sure.
...
|
|
And again you anti gun folks miss the point. You protect NO ONE by stopping legal gun purchase. you can protect them by keeping the crazy away from peopleSo again, we go back to lock people up so the can keep their rights.
I know this lovely fantasy world of "Good" vs "Evil" where everyone is wearing name tags saying which side they are on works in your head.
And I know you think incarcerating the "Bad" people is free, so we don't need to pay taxes.
But perhaps you can still see the irony that you want to keep the crazy people away from "people" but you don't want them to not be able to buy guns.
Or maybe you can't...not sure.
...
It is just a feelgood measure to placate the anti gun crowd that doesn't really do much to solve the problem of such violence.
|
|
It is just a feelgood measure to placate the anti gun crowd that doesn't really do much to solve the problem of such violence.And again you anti gun folks miss the point. You protect NO ONE by stopping legal gun purchase. you can protect them by keeping the crazy away from peopleSo again, we go back to lock people up so the can keep their rights.
I know this lovely fantasy world of "Good" vs "Evil" where everyone is wearing name tags saying which side they are on works in your head.
And I know you think incarcerating the "Bad" people is free, so we don't need to pay taxes.
But perhaps you can still see the irony that you want to keep the crazy people away from "people" but you don't want them to not be able to buy guns.
Or maybe you can't...not sure.
...
And your suggestions is...
It is just a feelgood measure to placate the anti gun crowd that doesn't really do much to solve the problem of such violence.And again you anti gun folks miss the point. You protect NO ONE by stopping legal gun purchase. you can protect them by keeping the crazy away from peopleSo again, we go back to lock people up so the can keep their rights.
I know this lovely fantasy world of "Good" vs "Evil" where everyone is wearing name tags saying which side they are on works in your head.
And I know you think incarcerating the "Bad" people is free, so we don't need to pay taxes.
But perhaps you can still see the irony that you want to keep the crazy people away from "people" but you don't want them to not be able to buy guns.
Or maybe you can't...not sure.
...
Except that with spree-killings and racial/religious shootings like the two incidents that have raised the subject, the the typical socio-economic factors that result in a high crime rate aren't at issue. Keeping weapons out of the hands those who will target innocent people for what I can only call paranoid reasons is a good idea.
Just because oversight of guns sales wouldn't do away with all murder everywhere forever doesn't make it a bad idea; it just shouldn't be touted as the end all, be all of crime prevention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Neo-Nazi strawman is a strawman.
Neither argument is a strawman in the least. I think i deserve a better counter argument than merely labeling it a strawman without addressing it.
You wanted this guys guns taken away, ostensibly for misdemeanor drunk driving. Malarky. He's a neo nazi racist nut that we both agree shouldn't be allowed to own so much as a pair of rubber handled kindergarten scissors.
The problem is that you have to put someone in charge of making that decision. That opens the position up to abuse. To prevent that, this country has set the balance heavily against the government having the power to interfere.
And saying that psychologists are to subjective to put stock in, yet we give them the authority to involuntarily commit someone...
For 72 hours. If its longer than that you have a full on trial with a public defender if need be. And the judge has to agree that they're a raving loon. While I agree that this is a greater infringement on one, individual persons rights than stopping them from buying guns, it is so necessary to do and comes with so many safeguards in place to keep it from being abused all that often.
You are better than these arguments, as I've from you in other threads.
I think the difference there is you agreed with what i was saying.
No one is saying you can't buy guys. What I am saying is that if a licences mental health professional is concerned to the point they contact the police to indicate someone should not have a firearm, they probably shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm subject to an appeal process.
That is a burden you cannot place on a constitutional right.
No one is raiding their house to take their guns (unless they are committed as the firearms purchase attempt raised red flags), no one is locking them up, you are simply putting a hold on purchase until further review.
Then you're not going to accomplish anything. People going this nuts probably have the gun already.
That was a person detained and his house raided because a guy he worked with got a phone call and called the cops.
Menacing is illegal. Problem solved.
All I am asking is that if a mental health professional is concerned about a patient, they get a hold put on new purchases and the mental health professional be notified.Which is more invasive?
The 72 hour hold is more invasive to the individual but is so hard to do and so expensive to carry out that its hard to abuse for a broader objective. (but it has been done).
Putting someone's name on a list and requiring them to make multiple court appearances, hire a lawyer to file the appeals paperwork, hire a psychiatrist to oppose the testimony of the other psychiatrist would be too cheap and easy on the states part to not be abused. Am i being pessimistic? Probably, but thats par for the course for me and I'm right a lot more often than I'd like to be.
|
|
Bignorsewolf- The neo-nazi is a strawman as it doesn't apply to Holmes, Cho, or Loughner, who were all diagnosed as dangerous and all should have been restricted access to firearms.
Will some guys like the Sikh murderer get through? Sure. But I bet if a court had done due diligence he would have had firearms restrictions as part of his probation for drunk driving.
The fact is 3 of the last 4 major spree killings involved people who were only able to buy firearms because of loopholes in the law or poor enforcement of existing laws.
Holmes bought guns and ammunition (and presumably rigged his house with booby traps) after he was reported to police as potentially dangerous by a mental health professional.
And none of them were under the radar.
Is the system imperfect? Yes. I work in it, it is even more fubar than you have described at times.
But we can't let the ideal of the perfect stop us from improving the existing.
Doing nothing doesn't work, we tried it, it sucked. Crime is down significantly in all areas of life because of interventions, not in spite of them.
Bignorsewolf- The neo-nazi is a strawman as it doesn't apply to Holmes, Cho, or Loughner, who were all diagnosed as dangerous and all should have been restricted access to firearms.
YOU added him onto the list. You said his drunk driving was a good enough reason to put him on the list. You do not start a singing and dancing routine with a farmgirl from Kansas and then tell me I'm making a strawman.
Will some guys like the Sikh murderer get through? Sure. But I bet if a court had done due diligence he would have had firearms restrictions as part of his probation for drunk driving.
See, you've had theoretical power for 4 days and you're already trying to expand it from people that are a danger to themselves and others to anyone that drives drunk.
The fact is 3 of the last 4 major spree killings involved people who were only able to buy firearms because of loopholes in the law or poor enforcement of existing laws.
I believe that any fix has to take into account reality. Any law other than at the manufacturing level is useless against someone bent on murder because guns are so easy to obtain illegally. The only people it can possibly affect are people abiding by the law.
Holmes bought guns and ammunition (and presumably rigged his house with booby traps) after he was reported to police as potentially dangerous by a mental health professional.
Loughner bought his a month and a half in advance of the shooting
Holmes started buying guns 4 months before the shooting.
And none of them were under the radar.
How many people are ON the radar though? How many false positives are there?
Is the system imperfect? Yes. I work in it, it is even more fubar than you have described at times.
I'm trying to disguise myself as a rational human being. Its amazing how often that requires not telling the whole truth.
But we can't let the ideal of the perfect stop us from improving the existing.
I don't think it would be an improvement. I think it would turn away more people from getting help than it would save.
Also, who said anything about multiple court appearances. They get a hold put on them purchasing a firearm, they file an appeal and the burden is on the person who put the hold to justify the hold to the court.
Then you're treating them like they're guilty until they take it upon themselves to prove their innocence. Can you see why i have a problem with that?
Nothing gets done in court in one go.
You need to know how to file an appeal.
You need to schedule your psychiatrist, your lawyer, the states lawyer, and the states psychiatrist to all be there on the same day. You think that can be done in less than six months? Its not like the shrink who put in the hold has any desire to hurry the process along, and in fact has every reason to delay it as long as possible (since they're effectively guilty until they prove their innocence)
Its certainly going to make the person in question not see their shrink anymore (and in all likely hood not seeing ANY shrink)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again you anti gun folks miss the point. You protect NO ONE by stopping legal gun purchase. you can protect them by keeping the crazy away from peopleAnd if this guy had used anything but a gun we would not be having this conversation. That is the issue. If he had made a fertilizer bomb we would not be discussing a panel to decide if he should be allowed to buy it. if he had burned it down with gas we would not be arguing that mental health officials should be able to flag the crazy so they cannot buy. Yet if the gun controllers get their way the crazy will still have other means, more efficient means, easily available. If you give a damn about stopping the suffering you would want to stop the crazy, not just one tool.They do track purchases of things needed for fertilizer bombs.
Also, gasoline and fertilizer have primary uses that don't involve maiming or killing living beings.
This isn't really a physical possibility, but if someone developed a chainsaw that was really bad at cutting wood, but super awesome at cutting people, and that was really it's only useful purpose, I'd be suspect of people wanting to own one.
The 10 year old son of a NYC police officer who fatally shot himself in the face might disagree with you.
The US averages around 500 accidental deaths of children by guns every year.
England on the other hand averages around 250 gun deaths in total every year, which would be about 1500 if they had the same size population we did.
Tugs at the heart strings. As the death of a child for any reason. Not really cause specific, though.
You're saying, that accidental deaths of only children can't possibly have any cause, when it equals 1/3 of another countries entire category of gun related deaths.
If England was our size, they would average 1500 gun deaths per year. We average 33,000. Our suicides alone outnumber their total gun deaths but 10-1.
Suicide studies have shown that reduced access to easy methods reduces the suicide rate.
On average, since this thread began, approximately 150 people have committed suicide with a gun.
Nope, I'm saying that children die of a ton of things, and it's tragic no matter the cause. An emotional appeal like this will just start the whole "well then why not also ban X cause of child death" argument again.
Doesn't really help the discussion. But, carry on.
Okay, so you're saying gun ownership is more important than these peoples lives.
Or, that something else equally horrible would have happened regardless, because that's fate.
Or that Americans are just stupid and inherently more likely to kill themselves.